A randomized, double-blind phase II study evaluating cediranib versus cediranib and saracatinib in patients with relapsed metastatic clear-cell renal cancer (COSAK)

17Citations
Citations of this article
63Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Preclinical work suggests SRC proteins have a role in the development of resistance to vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) targeted therapy in metastatic clear-cell renal cancer (mRCC). This hypothesis was tested in this trial using the SRC inhibitor saracatinib and the VEGF inhibitor cediranib. Patients and methods: Patients with disease progression after =1 VEGF-targeted therapy were eligible to participate in this double-blind, randomized (1:1) phase II study. The study compared the combination cediranib 30 mg once daily (o.d.) and saracatinib 175 mg o.d. (CS) (n = 69) or cediranib 45 mg o.d. and placebo o.d. (C) (n = 69). Archived tissue was used for biomarker analysis [SRC, focal adhesion kinase (FAK), von Hippel-Lindau, protein tyrosine phosphatase 1b and hypoxia-inducible factor 2a: n = 86]. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by RECIST v1.1. Results: Between 2010 and 2012, 138 patients were randomized across 16 UK sites. The characteristics of the two groups were well balanced. Partial responses were seen in 13.0% for C and 14.5% for CS (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in PFS [5.4 months (3.6-7.3 months) for C and 3.9 (2.4-5.3 months) for CS; hazard ratio (HR) 1.18 (0.94-1.48)] or overall survival (OS) [14.2 months (11.2-16.8 months) for C and 10.0 (6.7-13.2 months) for CS; HR 1.28 (1.00-1.63)]. There was no significant difference in the frequency of key adverse events, dose reductions or drug discontinuations. None of the biomarkers were prognostic for PFS or OS. FAK overexpression correlated with an OS benefit [HR 2.29 (1.09-4.82), P > 0.05], but not PFS, for CS. Conclusions: Saracatinib did not increase the efficacy of a VEGF-targeted therapy (cediranib) in this setting. Biomarker analysis did not identify consistent predictive biomarkers. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00942877.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Powles, T., Brown, J., Larkin, J., Jones, R., Ralph, C., Hawkins, R., … Nathan, P. (2016). A randomized, double-blind phase II study evaluating cediranib versus cediranib and saracatinib in patients with relapsed metastatic clear-cell renal cancer (COSAK). Annals of Oncology, 27(5), 880–886. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdw014

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free